User:Arianne1999/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Talk:Fertility
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Because we are learning about the Economics of Fertility in class

Lead evaluation
The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the content. However, some data showed on the page are from the years 1670 to 1830 and that seems outdated. All content seems to be relevant, but the 'history' part of the article seems to be out of place or could have used a better header name

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems neutral overall. There are no claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Citation needed for definition of 'fecundity'. Many sources are from the 1990s or early 2000s and I think it could be updated to sources from the 2010s. Some sources are not from academic journals such as the 'mayo clinic'. Some references also have no links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
This article is not very well written and some sentences can be quite confusing, such as 'A lack of fertility is infertility while a lack of fecundity would be called sterility'. I feel that 'lack of fecundity' seems unnecessary for an article about fertility. The sentence structure could use a lot of work to make it more concise and easier to read. I have not found any spelling errors, although grammar could use more work. It is broken down to sections that reflect the major points, but I feel like 'menstrual cycle' could have been under the section of female fertility rather that being its own section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The image of the map distribution could be bigger. The source of the image is not cited so it may not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. For the images of the graphs, I am unsure whether the author has granted permission to use their graphs. The images are well-captioned.

The images would be more visually appealing if the sizes of the images were adjusted

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations on the talk pages are mostly about citing sources and correcting terminology. The article is rated as C-class and it part of many WikiProjects such as Sociology, Genetics, Anthropology, Economics, Sexology and Sexuality, Women, and Evolutionary Biology. This Wikipedia discusses fertility in terms of its biological aspects whereas in class, we focus on the Economics dimension of it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
This article's overall status is poorer than average and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. The strengths include its content in a sense that most of the information if relevant and informative. The concept of fertility is a very significant so having a Wikipedia would be important to inform. The article could improve on its sentence structure and grammar. Additionally, all empirical information should be cited from peer-reviewed journals that is relevant to fertility.

I feel that the article is underdeveloped in some areas, such as 'History Trends by Country' could be more comprehensive as it just covers Western nations. The article could also expand more on infertility.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: